Judgment :- Usha. J. State of Kerala is the appellant. Challenge is against the judgment of Sub Court, Trivandrum in L.A.R. No.215/82. 71.74 Ares (1 acre 77 cents) in Pallichal Village, Neyyattinkara Taluk was acquired from the respondents for Defence Department. Notification under Section 3(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 11-10-1977. Award was passed on 16-9-1980 and possession was taken on 25-10-1980. Land Acquisition Officer granted land value at the rate of Rs. 370/- per Are (Rs. 150/- per cent) while the claim was for Rs. 1000/- per cent. Being not satisfied with the award the claimant sought reference. The reference court in L.A.R. No.215/82 granted enhancement and fixed the land value at the rate of Rs. 2161/- per are (Rs. 875/- per cent). The appellant contends that the enhancement granted by the reference court is totally unjustified. 2. There is a cross appeal filed by the respondent/ claimant. He claims statutory benefit as per the amended provisions contained under Section 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 3. Before examining the contentions raised by the appellant and respondent/ claimant on merits of the case we would consider certain legal objections raised by the respondent, varnish would go to the root of appreciation of evidence in this case. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the appellant cannot be permitted to rely on the notes on award etc., in this case so long as it has not been marked at the time of examination of rw1 before the reference court. According to the learned counsel, documents forwarded along with the reference* statement by the District Collector to the Court are not be treated automatically as evidence in the case unless they are proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act. It is further pointed out that in this case even the reference statement is not in accordance with law. Further objection is against reliance made by the appellant on the basis of document which was marked as Ext. R2 through RW.1 without examining the vendor or vendee of the document. 4. Provisions regarding Collector's reference statement to the court as contained in Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read as follows: "19. Collector's statement to the Court - (1) In making the reference, the Collector shall state for tjinformation of the court, in writing under his hand. 4. Provisions regarding Collector's reference statement to the court as contained in Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read as follows: "19. Collector's statement to the Court - (1) In making the reference, the Collector shall state for tjinformation of the court, in writing under his hand. a) the situation and extent of the land, with particulars of any trees, building or standing crops thereon b) the names of the persons whom he has reason to think interested in such land; c) the amount awarded for damages and paid or tendered under Sections 5 and 17, or either of them, and the amount of compensation awarded under Section 11; ((cc) the amount paid or deposited under sub-section (3-a ) of Section 17; and) d) if the objection be to the amount of (lie compensation, the grounds on which the amount of compensation was determined. 2) To the said statement shall be attached a schedule giving the particulars of the notices served upon, and of the statements in writing made or delivered by, the parties interested respectively. "Clause (cc) was added by amendment: in the year 1984. Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 contained similar provisions except clause (cc). We find merit in the, contention of the learned counsel appealing on behalf of the respondent that the statement of reference made by the District Collector in this case to the Sub Judge, Trivandrum does not satisfy the requirement of Section 19. The reference statement in this case is in the form of a letter, which reads as follows: I am forwarding herewith the case records in respect of L. A.C. No. 25/80 duly listed with the statement of particulars for adjudication under S.20 of the KLA Act. This case relates to the acquisition of 71.14 arcs of land in Sy. No. 237/1 A/38-1 of Pallichal Village in Neyyattinkara Taluk for the Defence Department. The award in this case lias been passed on 16-9-1980 as item No. 10 of AS No.3/80-81. The land has been taken possession and handed over to the Military Authorities on 25-10-1980. An amount of Rs.47162.88 has been awarded to the parties as LA. compensation. The amount of compensation has been paid under protest and the individual has filed reference application on 3-11-1980. Yours faithfully, sd/-special Taliasildar. The land has been taken possession and handed over to the Military Authorities on 25-10-1980. An amount of Rs.47162.88 has been awarded to the parties as LA. compensation. The amount of compensation has been paid under protest and the individual has filed reference application on 3-11-1980. Yours faithfully, sd/-special Taliasildar. We have no hesitation to observe that the above caller will not satisfy the requirement of Section 19 for reference statement. Similar view had been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Slate of Kerala v. Mariamma Abraham and another, AIR 1969 Kcr. 265. The learned Government Pleader submitted that even though the reference is not strictly in the form in which it should be as per the provisions conflated under Section 19(1), since all the relevant materials are available under the governing letter and the documents enclosed therein it should be taken as substantial compliance and no separate statement is necessary. It is seen that an objection was taken in the statement tiled by the respondent in the reference court that the reference was not maintainable and mat it was not in accordance with law. The fact that such a contention is raised is seen from the judgment also. The objection was not further developed nor any argument seen addressed on that ground. Both sides therefore proceeded to contest the matter on merits and if we are now to hold that the reference was not proper it will not certainly be in the interest of the respondent/ claimant. The appellant has not raised such an objection before us. Under these circumstances, we do not propose to interfere with the judgment of court below on the ground that there was no proper reference. But we take this opportunity to alert District Collectors to lake more care while drawing up reference statement and to follow the requirements contained in Section 19(I) of the Land Acquisition Act. If the statement of reference is not in accordance with Section 19(1), it is open to the office of the subordinate courts to return the same on the ground that the reference statement is not in accordance with law. 5. The next objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is that no reliance could be made on the notes on award in this case as it has not been proved or marked through the Land Acquisition Officer. 5. The next objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is that no reliance could be made on the notes on award in this case as it has not been proved or marked through the Land Acquisition Officer. The learned counsel brought to our notice a judgment of the Supreme Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Am: 1988(3) SCC 751, where reference is made to the following factors which are relevant while considering a reference, it reads as follows: "A reference under Section IK of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award unless the same material is produced and proved before the court." "The court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it." In this case except the basic document and the group sketch no other document which is part of the acquisition proceeding on which reliance was made by the awarding officer to 11 x the land value has been produced before the reference court. Therefore the Respondent No.1 was fully justified in contending that the notes on award cannot be looked into by this Court in support of the contentions raised by the appellant. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/ claimant further contended that the appellant cannot be allowed to rely on the basic document which is produced as Ext. R2, so long as neither the vendor nor the vendee of the document was examined to prove the same. In support of the above contention he relied on the following decisions of the Supreme Court: The Collector, Raigark v. Dr. Harisindh Thakurandaiiollier, (1979) 1 SCC 236, Kurnari Veeriah and others v. State of A.P., (1995) 3 SCC 436, Union of India and others v. Simil Chandra Saha and another, (1995) 5 SCC 311, and Major Pakhar Singh Atwal and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 401. Harisindh Thakurandaiiollier, (1979) 1 SCC 236, Kurnari Veeriah and others v. State of A.P., (1995) 3 SCC 436, Union of India and others v. Simil Chandra Saha and another, (1995) 5 SCC 311, and Major Pakhar Singh Atwal and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 401. He further contended that the decision of the Supreme Court in P. Ram Reddy and others v. iMiid-Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad and others, (1995) 2 SCC 304, relied on by the learned Government Pleader where a different notes is struck has to be treated as a judgment per incuriam.. 7. In (1979) 1 SCC 236 (Supra) what was considered by the court was whether production of a sale statement made by Revenue Inspector will be evidenced to show the price of comparable sites in question. It was held that the sale statement by itself without examining either the vendors or the vendees or the persons attesting the sale deeds is not admissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon. It is a case where the sale deed as such was not produced before the Court when the Land Acquisition Officer was examined in support of the award. In (1955) 4 SCC 136 (Supra) Supreme Court held that in view of the provisions contained under Section 51-A certified copies of sale deeds are admissible in evidence as secondary evidence. But unless either the vendor or vendee was examined as witness to testify not only the consideration paid but also their specific knowledge and circumstances in which the sale deed came to be executed, the sale deeds cannot be relied to determine market value of the acquired lands. In this case document was sought to be produced by the claimant to support his claim without examining the vendor or vendee to the document. From para 2 of the above judgment in 1995(5) SCC 311 (Supra) it is not clear whether sale deeds marked by the Land Acquisition Officer were sale deeds which were referred to in the notes on award and relied on by the awarding officer for drawing of the award. In 1995 Supp (2) SCC 4UJ (Supra) the claimant who was seeking enhancement of compensation from what has been granted wanted to rely upon sale transactions which were referred in the award by the Land Acquisition Officer. In 1995 Supp (2) SCC 4UJ (Supra) the claimant who was seeking enhancement of compensation from what has been granted wanted to rely upon sale transactions which were referred in the award by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Supreme Court held that the claimant cannot be allowed to rely on such sale transactions unless steps were taken to prove those documents. 8. In 1995(2) SCC 305 (Supra) relied on by the Government Pleader there is elaborate consideration about the effect of the introduction of Section 51-A of the Land Acquisition Act in Paragraph 19 and also the requirement of examining vendor or vendee of the document on the basis of which award is made as follows : "However, the mere fact that a certified copy of the document is accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document docs not dispense with the need for a party relying upon the certified copies of such documents produced in court in examining witnesses connected with documents to establish their genuineness and the truth of their contents. Therefore, the certified copies of registered documents, though accepted as evidence of trisections recorded in such documents, the court is not bound to act upon the contents of those documents unless persons connected with such documents give evidence in court as regards them and such evidence is accepted by the court as true. But when the LAO or the Collector has made his award based on the contents of documents, as found in the registers kept under the Registration Act and produces registration copies of such documents in support of his award in court, they could be regarded acceptable as evidence by court given in support of the award unless it is shown by contra-evidence on behalf of the claimants that such documents could not have been relied upon by the Collector or LAO in making the award. It would be so for the reason that when the LAO produces in court registration (certified) copies of those documents which he had made the basis for determining the market value, that would be only to support his award and not to establish something independent of the award. It would be so for the reason that when the LAO produces in court registration (certified) copies of those documents which he had made the basis for determining the market value, that would be only to support his award and not to establish something independent of the award. If that be so, when such documents are produced on behalf of the LAO in court, they cannot be rejected on the ground that the witnesses associated with those documents cannot be examined by the LAO, inasmuch as even without producing such documents he can rely upon the award made by him to show that he had looked into those documents and he had determined the market value on their basis. Hence, the mere fad mat witnesses associated with such certified copies of documents produced as evidence in court were not examined on behalf of the LAO will not in any way affect the award of the LAO if he has determined the market value of the acquired land having perused those documents as found in the registers kept under the Registration Act or their certified copies before determining the market value of those lands on the basis of such documents." We find that 1995 (2) SCC 305 (Supra) is the only case where the question whether the vendor or vendee of the basic document has to be examined by the Land Acquisition Officer in the Court to support the award has come up for specific consideration. It has been held that even without examining the vendor or vendee the Land Acquisition Officer can rely on the certified copy of the document to support his award, if he had relied on those documents for making the award. We are therefore of the view that there is no merit in the contention mat 1995 (2) SCC 305 (Supra) was decided per incuriam and therefore the dictum laid down therein cannot be relied on. (Paras 9 to 18 omitted being appreciation of evidence) 19. Thus an amount of Rs. 125/- per cent which would come to Rs. 308.75 per are for 71.74 areas has to be reduced from the land value granted by the court below. The contention taken by the claimant in the cross appeal that the court below has committed an error in awarding interest at a uniform rate of 12% is correct. 125/- per cent which would come to Rs. 308.75 per are for 71.74 areas has to be reduced from the land value granted by the court below. The contention taken by the claimant in the cross appeal that the court below has committed an error in awarding interest at a uniform rate of 12% is correct. We hold that the claimant is entitled to the benefit of the amended provision contained in Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He is entitled to the benefit of Sec. 23(2) but not for interest on solatium in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Yadavrao P. Pathede (dead by LRS. etc. v. State of Maharashtra 1996(1) KLT 452 =1996(2) JT 240. Benefit under Section 23(1A) is also not due to the claimant. The judgment and decree of the court below are modified as above. The appeal and cross appeal stand partly allowed without any order for costs.